Of the main candidates, only Rudy Giuliani (pro-abortion) and Newt Gingrich (Mr. Contract with America) are missing.

McCain actually has a solid conservative record. But I can't forgive him for the BCRA and the Gang of 14. We lost our chance for President Bush to reshape the courts because of him (one of the big things in which the President has satisfied conservatives).

Any one that supports open borders (Brownback) will lose the primary. Mark that on your calendar. A "Fence First" policy will win conservative support. I'll even go so far as to say that anyone who voted for the Senate's version of the Immigration Bill (you know, the one with the guest worker policy) will not get the nomination. Are you listening Sens. Brownback and McCain?

So far, I like Mitt Romney. Although, I admit that I don't know his position on immigration. I like what I see in this article, though.

Contrary to how the AP writer slants it, you can be anti-gay-marriage and not be anti-homosexual. Being anti-abortion, but vowing to support your state's laws if elected is also not a hypocritical position. Judges do it all the time.

[Side Note: I hope I'm coining a term here: Mormophobia. This article attempts to drive a wedge between Evangelical Christians and Romney by mentioning his Mormon faith. In my experience, Mormons and Evangelical Christians aren't that far apart (anti-abortion, pro-family-values, etc...).]

Each of these stories (except maybe the McCain article) mentions conservative "roots" or "first principles" (Captain's Quarters was where I saw "first principles" used first). Gingrich is only being considered because of his symbol as a victory for conservative principles from the 1994 elections. At least the Republicans have learned that straying from those principles will keep them in the defeat column for years to come. That can only bode well for the discussion Republicans will have during the upcoming election cycle.

This is What We Want People to Do (Updated)

Wouldn't you think that 6 Imams (scholars) would realize that Muslim prayers on an airplane would be suspicious?

Couldn't they have prayed in the chapel of the airport (I'm not sure if it has one, and I'm sure the timing of the prayers would be off, but as I understand it, you can make up for missed prayers later).

Couldn't they have prayed to themselves, instead of out loud? I know this is an option.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 98% of terrorists are Muslims. What was the religion of the 19 hijackers again?

If someone shouts "Allah akhbar" on an airplane, I'm going to report that as suspicious.

The imams may or may not have intended it as such, but this incident will be used to get evil, western airlines to be more "sensitive" to Muslim behavior.

I am frankly appalled that the imams have the arrogance to assume that everyone should know about Muslim prayers. They're here visiting. I'm sure they know what happened on 11 Sep 01. If they don't understand why standing up on a plane and chanting in Arabic would create suspicion, that's the real problem.

I e-mailed Glenn Beck about this one. Hopefully he addresses it on the air.

UPDATE: Nothing on Glenn Beck yesterday (not that I heard - he spent the day ranting about Michael Richards)

A new AP story (via Jihad Watch) says that the imams prayed in the terminal and did not do so on the plane. Still, it doesn't change my opinion that visitors to the US should be more sensitive to American security concerns (who were attacked on 9/11) instead of the other way around.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Shocker: Democrats and Lobbying Group See Eye-to-Eye

Did you know that the US is the most unfriendly country to visitors?

It is, according to this Reuters report. Out of 16 countries, the US was last. I tried to figure out the internals by going to the RT Strategies home page. But, the site doesn't appear to have been updated since Feb 2006.

The survey was commissioned by the Discover America Partnership. As advertised in the article, they are a group of leaders of tourism-based industries (hotels, rent-a-cars, Disney, and even Anheuser Busch). Here's a list of the leadership.

But check out the link in the upper right hand corner. It's a link For Policymakers. This is a lobbying group for the tourist industry. If you read the story, the point seems to be that a more streamlined, "nicer" customs and visa process at airports would encourage more tourism in the United States.

But, the DAP has a different agenda. Here's a press release (on Hospitality.net, oh joy, what fun!) where they praise the Senate (read: Democrat) version of an immigration bill because it has a a guest worker program. It also criticises the House (read: Republican) version of the bill that does not have a guest worker program. Here's a quote:

“The House bill is unacceptable for the lodging industry because it ignores a crucial element of the problem,” said AH&LA Executive Vice President for Public Policy Marlene Colucci. “It fails to recognize the contributions of foreign-born workers to the U.S. economy and does not resolve the problem of undocumented workers. "OK, you lost me at "undocumented". They're illegal.

So, back to the original article that says the US is unfriendly to visitors. Reuters has taken a poll sponsored by a lobbying group and reported it as fact in order to make it easier for "visitors" to get visas.

With apologies to Michelle Malkin...here's the checklist:Bash the US as unfriendly? CheckPromote streamlined visas? Check (No threat to security here, move along)Forward the open borders agenda? CheckTry to get the "money out of politics" by refusing to accept a lobbying group's press release as news? Well, maybe next time.

The funniest part of this whole thing is that the guest worker program is being supported by the Democrats. Here's an interview with Nancy Pelosi from Mar 2006 that backs the Senate version of the bill. VDARE has more on Pelosi's open-borders record.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

2006 Election Results = Abu Ghraib

The American people who voted to put the Democrat Party in power apparently have not learned the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia. If you go into a battle, be prepared to win it.

That was the lesson learned from WWI and WWII. Korea was the breaking point - it was the first war where we were prepared to accept anything short of victory.

Are we, as Americans, not prepared to do everything to fight and win and thereby protect our country and our way of life? It would appear not. When the going gets tough, Americans elect to leave.

The election results yesterday will be encouraging to our enemies in the same way that the release of the Abu Ghraib photos were. They will use it as a recruiting tool to show that they are succeeding in weakening the United States. Attacks in Iraq were on their way down until the Abu Ghraib photos were released. The events or Abu Ghraib are still used by terrorists, media outlets, and other enemies of the United States to show that were are the bad guys and must be stopped. The media says that Iraq is "making terrorists". I've got news for you: if you continue to pubblish the AG photos and related stories, you are giving them the tools to make terrorists. I'm not saying don't report the bad news, but the bottom line with Abu Ghraib is that the Army was doing the right thing and prosecuting the offenders before the media was involved. The Army is its own worst critic.

You can add the Spanish elections (following the Madrid train bombings) and the furor over the Mohammed cartoons to the list of events that serve as rallying points for our enemies.

We are committing suicide by handing our enemies the knife to slit our throats. Even if the GOP rebounds by retaking the House or Senate in 2008, and manages to hold on to the Presidency (Tancredo in '08!), our enemies will have learned they can make us weaker. How did they make us weaker? Not by defeating us, but by discouraging us. They have learned the lessons of Osama bin Laden: the US is a paper tiger.

Because of this election, the war that President Bush said will last 10 years, will last a generation or more.